Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29764797›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2018

Public Attitudes Toward Guided Internet-Based Therapies: Web-Based Survey Study.

Jennifer Apolinário-Hagen, Mathias Harrer, Fanny Kählke, Lara Fritsche, Christel Salewski, David Daniel Ebert

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jennifer Apolinário-HagenInstitute of Psychology, Department of Health Psychology, University of Hagen, Hagen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5755-9225
Mathias HarrerDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7016-2687
Fanny KählkeDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8189-301X
Lara FritscheInstitute of Psychology, Department of Health Psychology, University of Hagen, Hagen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2881-4992
Christel SalewskiInstitute of Psychology, Department of Health Psychology, University of Hagen, Hagen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5406-3168
David Daniel EbertDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6523-9280

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternet interventions have been proposed to improve the accessibility and use of evidence-based psychological treatments. However, little is known about attitudes toward such treatments, which can be an important barrier to their use.

objectiveThis study aimed to (1) determine attitudes toward guided internet interventions, (2) assess its acceptability compared with other internet-based formats, and (3) explore predictors of acceptance.

methodsA convenience-sample Web-based survey (N=646) assessed attitudes toward guided internet therapies (ie, perceived usefulness and helpfulness, and advantage relative to face-to-face therapy), preferences for delivery modes (ie, e-preference: guided internet interventions, unguided internet interventions, or videoconferencing psychotherapy), and potential predictors of attitudes and preferences: sociodemographics, help-seeking-related variables, attachment style, and perceived stress.

resultsAlthough most participants perceived internet interventions as useful or helpful (426/646, 65.9%), a few indicated their advantage relative to face-to-face therapy (56/646, 8.7%). Most participants preferred guided internet interventions (252/646, 39.0%) over videoconferencing psychotherapy (147/646, 22.8%), unguided internet interventions (124/646, 19.2%), and not using internet interventions (121/646, 18.8%; missing data: 1/646, 0.2%). Attachment avoidance and stress were related to e-preference (all P<.05). Moreover, preference for therapist-guided internet interventions was higher for individuals who were aware of internet-based treatment (χ

conclusionsParticipants assessed therapist-guided internet interventions as helpful, but not equivalent to face-to-face therapies. The vast majority (523/646, 81.0%) of the participants were potentially willing to use internet-based approaches. In lieu of providing patients with only one specific low-intensity treatment, implementation concepts should offer several options, including guided internet interventions, but not limited to them. Conversely, our results also indicate that efforts should focus on increasing public knowledge about internet interventions, including information about their effectiveness, to promote acceptance and uptake.

Indexed as

acceptability of health careattitude to computerscognitive therapyeHealthmental healthobject attachmentpatient preferencestress, psychological

Identifiers

PMID29764797
PMCPMC5974457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.